Love the file photo of the C5 Dash 8. It takes two seconds to Google what an ERJ looks like. Its like they said "Oh, United Express! It must be those crazy cowboys in those horrible loud tiny propeller planes!"

If only that Title the media decided to come up with for the article were a little more dramatic. Slow news day in the Newark area? I only say that because nothing seemed to be out of the ordinary unless you were aboard either one of these aircraft tonight. Someone must have contacted the news to report it.

with the title "Newark: collisione in pista tra aerei in decollo" (lit: Newark: collision on the runway between two planes taking off") and the title on the home page of the same website says "Newark: Collisione in pista tra aerei in decollo: tragedia sfiorata" (lit. Newark, collision on the runway between two planes taking off: almost tragedy).

I do not know why something relatively small needs to be made as sensational like that, but that seems to be the trend here now...

Quoting AZA330 (Reply 9):with the title "Newark: collisione in pista tra aerei in decollo" (lit: Newark: collision on the runway between two planes taking off") and the title on the home page of the same website says "Newark: Collisione in pista tra aerei in decollo: tragedia sfiorata" (lit. Newark, collision on the runway between two planes taking off: almost tragedy).

"Chopper 4 video from over the airport shows a broken wing on the Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) aircraft"

"Broken wing"? A bit over the top. So is "Newark: Collisione in pista tra aerei in decollo: tragedia sfiorata", but that is what passes for journalism these days...

As mentioned above: Yes, as long as it was just the winglet that was damaged, it can be removed and aircraft can fly without it. I imagine some sort of weight / range penalty, someone can probably expand on that. But then the press would have a field day: "Passengers Escape Death as Plane Takes Off with Broken Wing" .

Probably will ferry to CPH and get a new winglet. Until then, the a/c schedulers at Sk will be busy, given how tightly the carrier uses its widebody fleet. A couple of months ago they had two of the big birds out of service at the same time. One was pushed into a loading bridge at ORD by a very strong wind gust, I can't remember what happened with the other A/C.
SK had to wet lease capacity on a 777 from White Airways of Portugal for several days.

SK A330/340s have a nose camera feed on the IFE; maybe they should get wingtip cams for the pilots!

The SK A330 is still in EWR sitting on a hardstand. Not saying they wont ferry it somewhere but they haven't at this moment. It was getting dark outside but it appeared the winglet has been taken off the aircraft, possibly by MX.

Quoting SASDC8 (Reply 6):What is it with all these regional jets getting their tails clipped? Only joking, but I guess somebody did not hold in the position the should have been in again...

Quoting sk909 (Reply 7):I don't see any questionable in SK accidents. What is more questionable is the number of regional jets that are involved in these kinds of accidents.

Is it a question of the ATC/Ground Control not doing there jobs well enough? Maybe stacking the planen too tight?

Not to sound like a broken record, but are you kidding me? As I argued with the AF/OH incident, this could only be the fault of the crew that hits the other aircraft; in this case the SAS crew. When taxiing aircraft it is your responsibility to see and avoid. How could the Expressjet crew be at fault when they are the ones being hit and the other aircraft that hit them, is behind them? Again, it's not a matter of where anyone stopped or ATC stacking things too tight. Expressjet could've stopped anywhere whether they were told to or not, and it still would be incumbent on SAS to avoid them.

Quoting SocalApproach (Reply 16):The SK A330 is still in EWR sitting on a hardstand. Not saying they wont ferry it somewhere but they haven't at this moment. It was getting dark outside but it appeared the winglet has been taken off the aircraft, possibly by MX.

The aircraft ia back in service, and flew OSL-EWR as SK907 yesterday. Four hours delayed and without the winglet

Quoting sk909 (Reply 7):Is it a question of the ATC/Ground Control not doing there jobs well enough? Maybe stacking the planen too tight?

No. ATC has nothing to do with "stacking planes too tight." Ground ATC issues taxi clearance and orders pilots to hold short or follow certain aircraft -- it is the pilot's job to maneuver the aircraft and "see and avoid", just like in flight. ATC can not/will not help large aircraft negotiate turns or tight spaces for obvious legal implications. 99% of the time, collisions between aircraft on the ground are the fault of pilots or ramp employees.

Quoting Caspian27 (Reply 17):Not to sound like a broken record, but are you kidding me? As I argued with the AF/OH incident, this could only be the fault of the crew that hits the other aircraft; in this case the SAS crew. When taxiing aircraft it is your responsibility to see and avoid. How could the Expressjet crew be at fault when they are the ones being hit and the other aircraft that hit them, is behind them? Again, it's not a matter of where anyone stopped or ATC stacking things too tight. Expressjet could've stopped anywhere whether they were told to or not, and it still would be incumbent on SAS to avoid them.

Agreed. I don't think most people have a clue what controllers actually do. People are so quick to blame ATC in nearly every situation without understanding the facts or circumstance. Did ATC in some way cause this incident? Maybe, because we don't know all the facts yet, but it's HIGHLY unlikely for the reasons both you and I stated. That's why I can't understand why ATC is the first thought in some people's minds in cases like these. But I digress.

To add to your AF/OH reference, I believe the FAA unfortunately will share a small portion of the blame in that incident. My understanding is that a ground controller stated during an interview in the investigation that he was unaware a taxiway (Mike, I believe) was a movement area. Smooth. Even though the incident itself was not the fault of those in the ATCT, that unfortunate admission means some blame will likely be attributed to the FAA. However, as I stated above, 99% of the time these collisions are related to anyone except ATC. Plain and simple.

Quoting Caspian27 (Reply 17):Not to sound like a broken record, but are you kidding me? As I argued with the AF/OH incident, this could only be the fault of the crew that hits the other aircraft; in this case the SAS crew. When taxiing aircraft it is your responsibility to see and avoid. How could the Expressjet crew be at fault when they are the ones being hit and the other aircraft that hit them, is behind them? Again, it's not a matter of where anyone stopped or ATC stacking things too tight. Expressjet could've stopped anywhere whether they were told to or not, and it still would be incumbent on SAS to avoid them.

It's sort of like getting rear-ended at a red light. It is the offending driver's responsibility to see, avoid, and brake in time so as not to hit you.